News from the editors of annabelle magazine, updated often...
Topics:
Americans at Leisure:: Diversions in the dead of winter :: Motherhood by choice :: Brad and Jen :: What's good on the tube?December 12, 2005
According to the 2004 Harris Poll on leisure activities, American adults were spending 19 hours a week pursuing a pastime, the most popular being reading, watching TV, and spending time with the family.
The Full Top 20 (Most Popular First):
1. Reading 11. Listening to music 2. Watching TV 12. Entertaining 3. Spending time with the family 13. Hunting 4. Going to the movies 14. Playing team sports 5. Fishing 15. Shopping 6. Computer activities 16. Traveling 7. Gardening 17. Sleeping 8. Renting movies 18. Socializing with friends 9. Walking 19. Sewing/crocheting 10. Exercise 20. Golf In all, 52 activities received one or more percent of the responses from the 1,014 adults surveyed.
I showed the poll to a few friends and they all had the same reaction I had: FISHING?! WHAT THE HELL?? How could this grumpy old men pastime rank higher than computer activities? Certainly Googling alone would beat out fishing. But, the Harris group has been conducting this poll since 1995, and fishing has always come in the top five.
Since the 2005 poll has yet to be released, I'm curious to see if this year computer activities overtake fishing as a favorite pastime. Who knows? Maybe bait and tackle is the senior citizen's last gasp at validation, a way to show those youth-oriented advertisers that the Depends demographic exists.
As a former thespian, I was sad to see theater with only one percent of the vote, thus being outranked by hunting (5%), woodworking and working on cars (both at 2 %). Gardening has been slipping in recent years. Once favored by 15% (1999), last year only 6% said they're into P. Allen Smith's 12 Principles of Design. Makes me wonder if most of the respondents were heterosexual men from red states.
I was happy to see that Reading is at the very top of the list. Since this is a Leisure issue, I'd like to suggest a couple books, Thorsten Veblen's The Theory of the Leisure Class and Harold Bloom's How to Read and Why. For those who prefer a less filling read, go back to our premiere issue and check out some of the books mentioned in our informal poll about reading.
Now, back to work!
Spring Break is two months away but already stores are packed with swim suits and cute warm weather clothes for that tropical vacation I wish I were going on. Last week, I received an electronic invitation to a wedding in sunny Belize in March that I can't attend for lack of money and pesky graduate school. (I would like to reflect for a moment on the utter coolness of the invitation—no trees killed—how progressive this couple is!)
In any event, we here at annabelle have indulged in a few distractions to keep the cheer as we await better weather and the season premier of The L-Word:
1. Pharrell Williams: This is one N.E.R.D. I can get on board with.
2. The Simple Life 3: Interns: I know, I should be shot now.
3. Cat Power You are Free: As always, I am years behind the rest of the world in listening to Ms. Chan. I can see now why people have been telling me about her: An amazing album, like she recorded the sound of a heart breaking.
4. The Oscars: I wish they sent DVDs of all of the nominated films to viewers so we could be an educated audience. Just a suggestion.5. Gilmore Girls are 100. Wow, you don't look an episode over 97!
January 12, 2005
In honor of our new Mothers issue:I'm at the age where a lot of my girlfriends are having children and I'm not. This doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that they all are moving away to suburbia and going through new phases in their lives and I'm stuck here in my little apartment living the same life I've always lived. Oh sure, I have a new job that is challenging me in ways I never dreamed and keeping me busy enough so that I'm not always noticing we don't get to hang out on the spur of the moment anymore. Still…
I hate that I can't carry on a conversation over the phone with them because their minds are obviously focused on what little Junior is up to. It's okay. I understand. Children need to be looked after. I accept that I've been replaced by a bundle of joy. It just seems a little unfair. I thought I meant something to these women, and let's not forget I was here first.
Maybe I'm just freaking out because, yes, I'm approaching the point on the grid where the line that represents the likelihood of getting pregnant is meeting the line that represents the likelihood of infertility. Maybe I'm just getting a little nervous that I may never have my own flesh and blood offspring and that my parents might never see what another generation of Thurmond looks like. See, my very deserving mother and father do not have a grandchild and it's beginning to look like I'm their only hope.
I have two older sisters. One is married but isn't showing any signs of a ticking biological clock. I dare not broach the subject with her because the one time I hinted about her having babies, her response was, "Mom and Dad aren't ready to have grandchildren." Has she talked to Mom and Dad lately? My other sister has found happiness raising a beagle. Since my sisters might read this I don't want them to feel pressure or anything like that. I want them to be happy, even if it means our branch of the family tree stops growing...because of our selfish choices. Just kidding.
I always envisioned my journey towards parenthood being with a travel buddy. Okay, I admit that I haven't exactly made much effort in finding one but, as my mother recently pointed out to me, there are ways to procreate without a gold band on my finger. Yep, she came right out and said those four words I never thought I'd hear my mother say to me, "There's always artificial insemination." My parents, who voted for Bush I might add, are that desperate. I half-jokingly blurted out, "I'll do it if you'll pay for it." She said she would, and she said she and Dad would help me raise the baby if I moved back home. Is that not a great "Let's Make a Deal" prize or what!
I didn't tell mom this but I had already been considering AI as an option. There are between 150,000 to 200,000 women artificially inseminated each year in the United States. I could be one them. I think.
While doing some research about AI, I came across a 1987 survey done by the Office of Technology Assessment. Results of the survey found that physicians and sperm banks seemed reluctant to give away good sperm to single women. Most recipients were heterosexual couples dealing with infertility problems or other complications ranging from genetic disorders to histories of drug abuse. Back then, less than 4% of accepted women were without a male partner. Hell, even lesbians with partners had a better shot at a shot of spunk. I'm sure the numbers have changed as more women have opted to choose a career over any immediate need to start a family. But there's still a belief that two heterosexuals are better than one when it comes to raising a child (for more on this, see Gayby Boom article).
Based on what I've witnessed, I kind of agree with the belief. Not the heterosexual part, but the needing two people part. My friends who are mommies do not have it easy. Even with a partner to help out, they still have their hands full. I can't help but wonder if I'd be kidding myself that I could do it alone, or with my parents aid. Responsibility is hard enough for me as a single person. Who am I to think I'd be able to take on the responsibility of another person's life?
If I choose AI, there's the possibility that my child will grow up and want to find her biological father. As most sperm banks do not reveal the identity of donors, I could be burdened with a child that hates me for not giving her a real dad and no option for her to find him.
That's not all. Say I end up with the sperm of a college student that paid his way through academia by donating his manhood. There's now a fear that the progeny of these types of multiple sperm donors might end up meeting and find out by some fluke that they are half-brothers and half-sisters. That's after they've slept with each other.
In a 2003 Chicago Sun-Times story, some of those college sperm makers admitted that they lied on the forms they had to fill out at the sperm bank. Think you're getting a graduate student? You might be getting the guy that spent his college years with a beer bong crammed down his throat. Sperm banks that screen for HIV and genetic disorders rarely screen academic records.
There is the possibility of asking a male friend to be the donor father, but that could be asking for more trouble than it's worth. I mean, who could I ask without pissing off the others? "Why'd you choose him over me? What's he got that I don't? What, I'm not good enough for you?" I couldn't live with any hurt feelings. And what if the chosen one decides he wants to BE a father and have visitation rights and all that legal stuff? No, better to not get another party involved, that's the way I see it.
I have a friend who, if it gets down to desperation, she'll pick up the best-looking stranger in a bar, go back to his place, and wham! bam! thank you sperm man! No strings attached, yes, but too risky. Who knows what else could be transmitted? And I hate the thought of saying "one-night stand" when explaining where babies come from to my little Junior.
All this is why I think on some level I'm just not quite ready to be a mother. Maybe I'm not mature enough. Maybe I'm a little unsure of how good a Mom I'd be. Maybe I'm just being selfish. Maybe I want to focus on my career. Or, maybe I am ready but the father isn't. If that's the case, then I'll be patient... for now.
Some reading material while I wait...
Single Mothers by Choice : A Guidebook for Single Women Who Are Considering or Have Chosen Motherhood, by Jane Mattes.-By Sarah Thurmond
January 10, 2005
Feminist SuperstarWhen my sister told me today that Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston had broken up, I almost pushed her out of the car. I was stunned at this turn of events in the lives of people I do not know! What was more humiliating was that the whole world knew about the split which was announced Friday, and here I was, days behind the news. "What happened to the golden couple?" I asked my sis who has more than a little crush on Mr. Pitt. "She didn't want kids," was her pat reply. This speculation was confirmed by an Australian wire report that stated, "Aniston ended her marriage to Pitt during a bitter row in London last month, their friends said last night. The final showdown took place at the Dorchester Hotel when Aniston, 35, told Pitt, 41, that she wanted to put movies ahead of motherhood."
Forget about Brad's Daddy-complex, the real story is how Jennifer Aniston just became a feminist superstar.
Yes, Jen has proved to all the world that if it was her decision in the final moments of Friends, she would have moved to Paris to further her fashion dreams and left a whimpering Ross behind. With Brad, she had the Heartthrob King, the man even straight men had a crush on. That was supposed to be enough, that was the prize, that's what we're supposed to believe anyway. Instead, she wants to focus on her career! She has plenty of money and fame, but now she wants more. For herself! That is revolutionary.
This isn't the first Hollywood romance to go kaput when the wife says no to the pitter patter of tiny feet. Remember John Stamos and Rebecca Romjin-Stamos? Gossip said she didn't want kids to ruin her model figure (or so they say, of course, I don't know these two either.) I do know people who have divorced for no other reason than the wife did not want to have children and the husband did. If there is a right to choose for women, men also choose parenthood, as unlikely as that might sound. In an enlightened state of choice, children are born to parents that want them, not parents who lost the coin toss.
So to Jen, I say, Happy New Year. Good luck in the future. The men and women of America thank you for putting Brad back on the market. The feminists of America thank you for your contribution.-By Alisa Welch
October 4, 2004
What's on the boob-tube?Happy anniversary to me... I mean, to US! This online magazine is now over a year old and we are as suprised as anyone that we managed to publish six whole issues. Stay tuned for changes and expansions in the coming year. You can hold us to that.
Speaking of staying tuned, I believe that there is no greater joy than watching a fantastic television show. I eagerly await each new fall season with a mixture of excitement (new episodes of The O.C.!), wonder (another Tony Danza show?), and dismay (why can't it be the Jack and Karen show and leave Grace in Cambodia?). If only the networks would consult me before they order 13 episodes of, say, another John Goodman sitcom. I've often wondered what the pitch meetings for TV shows must be like. I imagine a spastic young dude talking a mile a minute, "See, all we do is get Whoppi Goldberg and it will be like an American version of the Brtitish show Fawlty Towers!"
Now, let's break that sentence down into its most-likely-a-loser-formula parts:
1. The addition of an aging comedian does not guarantee that a show will be funny, in fact I believe that the opposite is true. When an actor comes to television because her movie roles have dried up, the answer is not to have an entire show built around her. (Exception: Candice Bergen had great movie success before Murphy Brown, a show that had a lot more going for it than simple star wattage.) Every season we see the same scenario with actors slumming in TV Land, Geena Davis, Alicia Silverstone, Joan Cusack, do I need to go on?
2. When will TV execs realize that British shows never translate to American audiences, unless they are completely stripped of all quirkiness and arrive on our screens virtually unrecognizable as to the original? (Exceptions: Three's Company and All In The Family were remakes of BBC shows.) The only British imports that seem to work these days are reality shows like American Idol and Trading Spaces. Particularly British shows like Absolutely Fabulous and The Office are successful because they skewer British society, and any effort to remake these shows for an American audience is like trying to put a cowboy hat on Tony Blair. Not funny and mildly disturbing.
While there are many shows to jeer at, there are some mighty fine shows out there, and a few new shows that I am highly interested in —Lost, Desperate Housewives, and Joey seem to be the best of the lot. So here are my picks for the best shows of the new fall network season:Will & Grace (NBC, Thursday, 8:30-9 PM): Still funny after all these years.
America's Next Top Model (UPN, Wednesday 8-9 PM): Two snaps in the air for this glamazon phenomenon.
Cold Case (CBS, Sunday 8-9 PM): Detective Lilly has time to get gorgeous highlights but not a life?
King of Queens (CBS, Wednesday 9-9:30 PM): Damn funny.
Extreme Makeover: Home Edition (ABC, Sunday 8-9 PM): I admit it, I cry at least once per episode.
The O.C. (FOX, Thursday 8-9 PM): Dear Seth, I love the way you wear T-shirts over button-ups and that you listen to cool bands. You should have picked the other girl instead of Summer. I love you anyway, though. xxo, AnnabelleHappy TV watching!
-Annabelle
subscribe for updates of annabelle's diary!
©2005 annabelle magazine
http://counter.digits.com/wc/-d/4/annabelle_counter
